What's the Best Hot Tub

Author Topic: Arctic - Energy Consumption  (Read 18178 times)

Spatech_tuo

  • Mentor Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6340
Re: Arctic - Energy Consumption
« Reply #30 on: November 03, 2005, 01:12:20 pm »
Quote

Have a look at their site, it is confusing.  Hey Steve get the marketing guys on that eh!  I thought they were calspa as well until I went to there tent sale after I had already purchased a tub.


Yeah, and why the heck is a dealer in Canada selling a Canadian spa yet calling his dealership California Spa and Fitness?
220, 221, whatever it takes!

Hot Tub Forum

Re: Arctic - Energy Consumption
« Reply #30 on: November 03, 2005, 01:12:20 pm »

Rayman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 527
  • KEEP ON TUBBING.....Bea chcomber owner
Re: Arctic - Energy Consumption
« Reply #31 on: November 03, 2005, 01:18:51 pm »
It doesn't help that the main store is attached to the factory that makes the tubs  ( I can walk to it from my office)
Beachcomber 750, Brampton On Canada, GO LEAFS GO!!

Confused

  • Junior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: Arctic - Energy Consumption
« Reply #32 on: November 03, 2005, 02:11:58 pm »
Well, I called the store. I didn't speak with her but I did explain the situation to the gentleman on the phone. I will send the hubby in to see if the story is any different.

HotTubMan

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1518
  • My 2.1 cents, eh
Re: Arctic - Energy Consumption
« Reply #33 on: November 03, 2005, 02:25:50 pm »
Confused, where do you live? Just curious as I work at the Whitby California Spa & Fitness store.
Homeworks Financing Representative

tootsie

  • Junior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 55
Re: Arctic - Energy Consumption
« Reply #34 on: November 03, 2005, 03:24:51 pm »
I don't know anything about any of these tubs,  but regarding the salesperson--first impressions often stay with you-- when we were looking a salesman actually lied about a "demo tub" but we caught him in it when he said something later,  so we just decided to go somewhere else to purchase a hot tub.   In the process of shopping around I found this forum,  and some wise person stated that all salespeople are different and if you don't like that persons sales tactic next time you go in get another sales person.  So we did go back and give them another chance, different sales person, different approach was a lot better still didn't buy a tub from there, but we liked the looks of the tubs and we didn't want to eliminate them based on one person.













wmccall

  • Global Moderator
  • Mentor Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7431
    • https://www.facebook.com/BillMcCall1959/
Re: Arctic - Energy Consumption
« Reply #35 on: November 03, 2005, 06:24:13 pm »
Quote

Yeah, and why the heck is a dealer in Canada selling a Canadian spa yet calling his dealership California Spa and Fitness?



My gym is called California Fitness, and its next to LA Tan.  I guess Chas' and his PR firm are really pushing this California is something idea.
Member since 2003.  Owner Dynasty Excalibur 2003-2012.   Sundance Majesta from 2012-current

Tman122

  • Ultimate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4424
  • If it Ain't Broke
Re: Arctic - Energy Consumption
« Reply #36 on: November 03, 2005, 06:27:55 pm »
To me, just by leaving out one very important fact (1" thicher cover that relates to 40 percent higher R-Factor) in the test, it is a decietful sales practice. I know, I know they chose a standered tub from each manufacturer. but if you were to make the test equal for all the brands chosen, would Arctic have come out on top, I don't think so. And the whole subject would be moot because the study would never be mentioned. Make sure you get a cover upgrade if you live in a cold climate. It will do more for your energy bill than picking what you think is the most energy effiecient brand. Because we are talking pennys difference per month between the brands but it could be dollars if you get a thicker cover. And a thermal blanket, and a wind break.
Retired

wmccall

  • Global Moderator
  • Mentor Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7431
    • https://www.facebook.com/BillMcCall1959/
Re: Arctic - Energy Consumption
« Reply #37 on: November 03, 2005, 06:30:35 pm »
Quote
and a wind break.



Thats seldom mentioned, but I can see where that could be a big factor in many cases.
Member since 2003.  Owner Dynasty Excalibur 2003-2012.   Sundance Majesta from 2012-current

Steve

  • Ultimate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3196
Re: Arctic - Energy Consumption
« Reply #38 on: November 03, 2005, 07:03:05 pm »
Quote
Make sure you get a cover upgrade if you live in a cold climate. It will do more for your energy bill than picking what you think is the most energy effiecient brand. Because we are talking pennys difference per month between the brands but it could be dollars if you get a thicker cover. And a thermal blanket, and a wind break.


You know I respect your opinion Tman but I don't agree with this last comment.

When I had a Beachcomber, I had a 3" cover. This was the standard cover offered at the time and I thought it would be interesting to see how it stood up.

Here in Alberta, it can easily reach into the -40's or even -50's at times. Let me throw this out to you;

If it's -30 and the snow is not melting on my cover, nor forming icicles along the seam anywhere, how much thicker does it need to be to be considered "efficient"? ???

What I can tell you without question is that the 4" or 5" covers have far more strength to them but I do question this consensus that having a thicker cover means lower operating costs. That, I strongly disagree with. After a certain point (or thickness), heat retention becomes a redundant issue.

Your feeling on that?

Steve

SJK

  • Junior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Arctic - Energy Consumption
« Reply #39 on: November 03, 2005, 09:57:04 pm »
Like Rayman, I have a Beachcomber (730) as well and its been nothing but great.  We're in it every night and love it.  Everything we heard about Beachcomber was pretty positive, and thats no knock on the other tubs. We live north of Brampton,  up in Collingwood and our dealer has been awesome since day one.  We still take water samples in from time to time for testing and they always give you all the time in the world.  Absolutely you have to wet test to see what tub you like best, but don't forget that you're going to want good dealer support for a while.  On principle, I would simply walk from anybody I felt was feeding me a line or whose integrity I questioned - no matter how much I liked the tub.  My advice is to read the literature carefully, search this forum,  wet test, wet test some more and then ask around as far as the dealer goes- ( if you can't do that, listen to your instincts - I walked from one guy I caught feeding me a story).
   If you do live in the GTA, you've got lots of choices so take your time and good luck!

marks

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 257
  • 2005 Beachcomber 580
Re: Arctic - Energy Consumption
« Reply #40 on: November 03, 2005, 10:48:20 pm »
We have a Beachcomber 580 and love it.  It looks great and run perfect.  We have had it for two months and our electric usage has not been different versus last year.  Couple of things that I don’t like: The foot jet diverter valve is loud in my opinion, the valves  to adjust the jet pressure basically change the pressure from high to low and not incrementally like you think they would. Wanted to look at Arctic but no dealer in my town.

stl-rex

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 352
  • Arctic Tundra Owner
Re: Arctic - Energy Consumption
« Reply #41 on: November 03, 2005, 11:47:17 pm »
Quote

You know I respect your opinion Tman but I don't agree with this last comment.

When I had a Beachcomber, I had a 3" cover. This was the standard cover offered at the time and I thought it would be interesting to see how it stood up.

Here in Alberta, it can easily reach into the -40's or even -50's at times. Let me throw this out to you;

If it's -30 and the snow is not melting on my cover, nor forming icicles along the seam anywhere, how much thicker does it need to be to be considered "efficient"? ???

What I can tell you without question is that the 4" or 5" covers have far more strength to them but I do question this consensus that having a thicker cover means lower operating costs. That, I strongly disagree with. After a certain point (or thickness), heat retention becomes a redundant issue.

Your feeling on that?

Steve


You do realize that by using your theory, you're roundaboutly validating the ARC results favoring Arctic(given the controlled environment). :o ;D  Senility creeping in?

stl-rex

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 352
  • Arctic Tundra Owner
Re: Arctic - Energy Consumption
« Reply #42 on: November 04, 2005, 12:03:16 am »
Quote
To me, just by leaving out one very important fact (1" thicher cover that relates to 40 percent higher R-Factor) in the test, it is a decietful sales practice. I know, I know they chose a standered tub from each manufacturer. but if you were to make the test equal for all the brands chosen, would Arctic have come out on top, I don't think so. And the whole subject would be moot because the study would never be mentioned. Make sure you get a cover upgrade if you live in a cold climate. It will do more for your energy bill than picking what you think is the most energy effiecient brand. Because we are talking pennys difference per month between the brands but it could be dollars if you get a thicker cover. And a thermal blanket, and a wind break.


It's a talking point.  I don't think it's deceitful at all.  If you're a sales guy it's: Fact - here's our cover - it's the thickest standard cover in the industry.  Thicker cover = better heat retention.  Fact - here's our tubs in an independent test.  ARC bought them themselves.  We came out favorably.  I've seen a lot worse as a consumer.  If the other mfrs were worried, they'd increase their std cover thickness to eliminate the advantage.

Notice Coyote didn't fare as well and they are made by Blue Falls also.  But it has less insulation, a thinner cover, and the doesn't seem to have the quality that goes into Arctic.  If it really was rigged, they would have propped Coyote higher.  Pity the person with Coast or Cal Spa. (the real Cal Spa, not Cal-Hydropool).  I noticed Beachcomber came out looking pretty good too.

The bottom line is we're talking braggin rights.  You think Ford and GM didn't watch 0-60 times in Car Mags?  6.2 vs 6.3.  The winner will claim braggin rights every time.  The test may mean little in the real world, but it can have an impact on prospective customer.

Tman122

  • Ultimate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4424
  • If it Ain't Broke
Re: Arctic - Energy Consumption
« Reply #43 on: November 04, 2005, 05:15:51 am »
Quote

You know I respect your opinion Tman but I don't agree with this last comment.
When I had a Beachcomber, I had a 3" cover. This was the standard cover offered at the time and I thought it would be interesting to see how it stood up.
Here in Alberta, it can easily reach into the -40's or even -50's at times. Let me throw this out to you;
If it's -30 and the snow is not melting on my cover, nor forming icicles along the seam anywhere, how much thicker does it need to be to be considered "efficient"? ???
What I can tell you without question is that the 4" or 5" covers have far more strength to them but I do question this consensus that having a thicker cover means lower operating costs. That, I strongly disagree with. After a certain point (or thickness), heat retention becomes a redundant issue.

Your feeling on that?

Steve



Wow Steve.........I musta been around a while to gain your respect...well just so ya know I respect you more...buddy. Must be cause there's very few people that live in a place as ungodly cold as you and can call it the USA.

My thoughts. My tub came with a 2-3 tapered cover standered. When we have a big snow storm it will cover the cover up and you will see the snow on the cover for a long time. I always clean it off. Does this mean there is no heat loss from the top through the cover no. At     -20 or -30 I have cleaned snow off my cover and it is still wet down at the cover surface meaning there is heat loss even though it is not enough to melt the snow before your eyes. A 3-4 taper would be 38 percent better and a 4-5 would be 70 percent better and the surface of the cover would be almost as cold as the outside. Now here is where you reach a point that you are correct in, anything over that and the savings starts to decrease because of cost versus size, blah blah blah but somewhere inside that foam cover at -20 or -30 besides being stupid to live here and be outside icefishing  ;D there is a spot where the warm meets the cold from inside to outside and convection is occuring, and the cold of the north woods is sapping power from your tub, your life, your truck, your favorite dog.

Can you tell winter is close? Am I excited for being able to soak in the cool northern climate? Not any more it's been cool for a couple months. I got a new blizzard prototype plow for my truck though and I am excited about using that for the first time.
Retired

HotTubMan

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1518
  • My 2.1 cents, eh
Re: Arctic - Energy Consumption
« Reply #44 on: November 04, 2005, 09:54:47 am »
Tman;

Does your cover have a 3rd piece of foam that dangles between the 2 large pieces when opened and seals the seem when it is closed?

This makes a huge difference IMHO. Many manufacturers do not have this peice. Most Canadian manufactured tubs feature this third peice of the cover : Hydropool, Arctic, Beachcomber, Coast all have this. Some American made tubs have it too, like Coleman. Dimension1 does not have it. I am pretty sure that Sundance and HS do not have it either (please correct me if I am wrong).

We all know that heat rises and radiates. If heat does rise, it will escape throught the seems where the cover folds. Some manufacturers take this into consideration, others do not.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2005, 03:19:33 pm by HotTubMan »
Homeworks Financing Representative

Hot Tub Forum

Re: Arctic - Energy Consumption
« Reply #44 on: November 04, 2005, 09:54:47 am »

 

Home    Buying Guide    Featured Products    Forums    Reviews    About    Contact   
Copyright ©1998-2024, Whats The Best, Inc. All rights reserved. Site by Take 42